TPAs revealed!

[Last Week]

And again for 2017.

Melbourne (1st)
Brisbane (3rd)
Penrith (7th)
Manly (6th)
Souths (12th)
Cronulla (5th)
Nth Queensland (8th)
Wests Tigers (14th)

Newcastle (16th)
Gold Coast (15th)
NZ (13th)
Canberra (10th)
Canterbury (11th)
Parramatta (4th)
Easts (2nd)
St George/Ill (9th)

Similar sort of pattern. A couple of outliers, but generally the the same.

Just on the Roosters, they had about $50k of TPAs in 2017, and that jumped to about $200k in 2018 with the signings of Cronk and Tedesco.

Conversely, the Tigers lost about $100k of TPAs after 2017, which would seem to account for losing Tedesco and Woods.

But the Storm seemed to have gone up by over $200k after losing Cronk. That probably was on the back of winning the premiership

 

[Timmah]

The way you are making it sound is that the Melbourne Storm are the only professional sporting team in the entire city and that they don't have to compete with other sporting codes for sponsorship dollars.

It's not like Suzuki or HostPlus have a 'separate' money aside to only put towards an NRL side that they couldn't instead give to an AFL, A-League, NBL, Super Netball, etc. team.

You'll find there's a fair variation in brands that align themselves with various codes, so in effect it kinda is the case.

Either way it doesn't change the fact that the Storm aren't competing for the same dollar the Sydney clubs are.

 

[Last Week]

or perhaps the more sucessful teams attract more?

That seems likely.

 

[MilkShark]

Might start a GoFundMe for the poor Roosters, this isn't fair.

 

[some11]

Just confirms what everyone already knew, although I didn't think the Cowboys would be third.

 

[rockcod]

Is it not painfully evident that all the Sydney clubs are fighting for TPA's in the same market? (same as sponsorship, how many clubs have Bryden's Lawyers on board for example?).

Melbourne have an entire city almost the size of Sydney to themselves.

Yeah that's pretty obvious, but Sydney is also supposed to be the Rugby League city, you would think that top tier of Sydney based NRL players would have similar earning potential than what the Melbourne guys do since they play by far the smaller code compared to AFL.

You would expect that the single markets would be doing better but the discrepancy is surprising imo.

Only a couple of players are widely known in Melbourne whereas in Sydney there would an opportunity for more players to have smaller tpa's but that doesn't seem to be balancing out in the numbers.

 

[Valheru]

Might start a GoFundMe for the poor Roosters, this isn't fair.

You could but the roosters nor their fans are actually complaining.

It is everyone else having a sook because the facts don't align with their narrative.

 

[carcharias]

What a joke this game is.

They crap on about a salary cap and yet here we are with two teams paying players well over 3 times more .

The NRL is a complete hoax.
Run by clowns

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The way you are making it sound is that the Melbourne Storm are the only professional sporting team in the entire city and that they don't have to compete with other sporting codes for sponsorship dollars.

It's not like Suzuki or HostPlus have a 'separate' money aside to only put towards an NRL side that they couldn't instead give to an AFL, A-League, NBL, Super Netball, etc. team.

While they are in a market with 10 VFL clubs, they have a section of the market that the VFL cannot touch (therefore, a market that only the Storm can communicate to)...

Any NSW/QLD/NZ expat who knows VFL is dogshit will almost certainly follow the Storm (at least as a "second team"). So while there are more VFL fans in Vic that RL fans, dividing it per club would put the Storm on a fairly even pegging.

I imagine the Swans would have a similar advantage, being the only club in Sydney

 

[LineBall]

Why do they always have to make it so complicated? They could get rid of TPAs altogether by just increasing the salary cap and saying everything has to be included. Or they could just let it be a free for all - no cap, pay as much as you think they're worth. At the moment it's just another murky layer that can be exploited/cheated and then requires more effort from the NRL to check that everyone is complying.

 

[Timmah]

Yeah that's pretty obvious, but Sydney is also supposed to be the Rugby League city, you would think that top tier of Sydney based NRL players would have similar earning potential than what the Melbourne guys do since they play by far the smaller code compared to AFL.

You would expect that the single markets would be doing better but the discrepancy is surprising imo.

Only a couple of players are widely known in Melbourne whereas in Sydney there would an opportunity for more players to have smaller tpa's but that doesn't seem to be balancing out in the numbers.

The discrepancy with Melbourne is almost certainly down to the presence of Slater & Smith. Their marketability, despite league being relatively niche, is huge.

In coming years the Storm will still be big in this area but nowhere to the same extent with Slater gone and Smith on the way out.

 

[Timmah]

What a joke this game is.

They crap on about a salary cap and yet here we are with two teams paying players well over 3 times more .

The NRL is a complete hoax.
Run by clowns

Forgive my ignorance but is the purpose of a Third Party Arrangement not that that a third party pays that element, not the club?

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Why do they always have to make it so complicated? They could get rid of TPAs altogether by just increasing the salary cap and saying everything has to be included. Or they could just let it be a free for all - no cap, pay as much as you think they're worth. At the moment it's just another murky layer that can be exploited/cheated and then requires more effort from the NRL to check that everyone is complying.

The dont want clubs going broke, but players would revolt if they werent allowed to exploit their public profile

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

What a joke this game is.

They crap on about a salary cap and yet here we are with two teams paying players well over 3 times more .

The NRL is a complete hoax.
Run by clowns

The sharks are more than welcome to move the Brisbane and take advantage of the markets

 

[LineBall]

The dont want clubs going broke, but players would revolt if they werent allowed to exploit their public profile

I understand - but some clubs have still needed a bail out - even with the cap in place.

 

[carcharias]

Forgive my ignorance but is the purpose of a Third Party Arrangement not that that a third party pays that element, not the club?

I knew someone would take it word for word.

The point is , why have a salary cap When there is third party deals.
It is ridiculous
I’m not naive enough to think the clubs have no hand in them.
You might be
I’m not

 

[Timmah]

I knew someone would take it word for word.

The point is , why have a salary cap When there is third party deals.
It is ridiculous
I’m not naive enough to think the clubs have no hand in them.
You might be
I’m not

Haven't these arrangements been around in one form or another even pre-salary cap? You can bet some beer mobs probably topped up players with slabs of piss on the side back in the day.

 

[carcharias]

The sharks are more than welcome to move the Brisbane and take advantage of the markets

What a shithole
No thanks

 

[carcharias]

Haven't these arrangements been around in one form or another even pre-salary cap? You can bet some beer mobs probably topped up players with slabs of piss on the side back in the day.

So what
The NRL crap on and on about it being an even playing field
It clearly isn’t .

The organisation is a debacle

 

[Timmah]

So what
The NRL crap on and on about it being an even playing field
It clearly isn’t .

The organisation is a debacle

On what basis? Results?

Haven't 13 of the 16 clubs won a title since the reunification in 1998?

It's a bit silly to come to such a conclusion based on just one year of data.